gwsadm-mcp

daily_brief_start

Start a background daily brief to avoid timeout, returning a job_id for polling results.

Instructions

Start a daily_brief in the background; returns immediately with a job_id.

Use this instead of daily_brief when the synchronous call risks the client's ~60s tool-call timeout (large tenants). Args mirror daily_brief. You MUST then poll daily_brief_result(job_id) every few seconds until status is done (the full daily_brief payload is under result) or error. On a config error returns {"error": ...}; if too many jobs are already active returns {"status": "rejected", ...}.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "daily_brief_start"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hours`	No
`samples`	No
`max_pages`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Describes immediate return, async nature, and two error states (config error, job rejection). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Could mention authorization needs or job lifecycle beyond polling, but adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well-structured: front-loaded with purpose, then usage details and error states. A bit wordy but effective.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers the necessary async flow with polling. Sibling tools provide the sync version and result fetcher. No output schema, but the polling mechanism is described. Could mention default values and parameter constraints.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has three parameters (hours, samples, max_pages) with defaults but no descriptions. Description says 'Args mirror daily_brief' but does not explain their meaning or effect. With 0% schema description coverage, this is insufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states it starts a daily_brief in the background and returns a job_id. Differentiates from sibling tool daily_brief (synchronous call) by highlighting async behavior.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use this tool (when synchronous call risks timeout for large tenants) and what to do after (poll daily_brief_result). Also covers error responses.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.